F IL E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH May 7, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
U N IT E D ST A T E S C O U R T O F A PP E A L S Clerk of Court
T E N T H C IR C U IT
LEOLA W RENN, on behalf of
Patricia W renn, deceased ,
Plaintiff - Appellant , No. 06-7088
v.
M ICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration ,
Defendant - Appellee .
A ppeal from the U nited States D istrict C ourt
for the E astern D istrict of O klahom a
(D .C . N o. C IV -03-350-K E W )
Steve A. Troutman of the firm Troutman & Troutman, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiff - A ppellant.
Christopher Carillo, A ssistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
Region IV, Social Security Administration, Dallas, Texas (Sheldon J. Sperling,
United States Attorney and Tina M . W addell, Regional Chief Counsel, Office of
the G eneral Counsel, Region IV, Social Security Administration, Dallas, Texas,
with him on the brief), for Defendant - Appellee.
Before H A R T Z , O ’B R IE N , and H O L M E S , Circuit Judges.
O ’B R IE N , Circuit Judge.
This case concerns the district court’s determination that the combined
attorney fees for representation before the Social Security Administration and on
appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits. That holding
ignores plain statutory language. W e reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. O V E R V IE W O F A P P LIC A T IO N F O R S O C IA L SE C U R IT Y
D ISA B IL IT Y IN S U R A N C E B E N E F IT S
To assist in understanding the fee structure for representing a Social
Security claimant, we provide a brief overview of the application process for
Disability Insurance Benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 405.1. A Social Security claimant
must first petition the Commissioner of Social Security for benefits. Upon review
of the claim, the agency issues an initial determination. A claimant who is
dissatisfied with the initial determination may request further review by a federal
reviewing official. If the claimant is still dissatisfied, she may request a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The decision of the ALJ is the
final decision of the Commissioner unless the claim is referred to the Decision
Review Board or A ppeals Counsel. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.967. A final
decision may be reviewed in federal district court. Should the district court
remand the case to the agency for further review, the Appeals Council will either
issue a decision or remand the case to an ALJ with instructions. See 20 C.F.R.
-2-
§ 404.983. During this process, the claimant may be represented by counsel who
often charge a fee for representation.
II. FE E S FO R R EPR ESE N TA TIO N
Congress prescribed specific limitations on the amount of fees which may
be awarded for representation of Social Security claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 406.
Section 406 “deals with the administrative and judicial review stages discretely:
§ 406(a) governs fees for representation in administrative proceedings; § 406(b)
controls fees for representation in court.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789,
794 (2002).
A. Administrative Proceedings -- § 406(a)
A claimant may be represented during administrative proceedings by an
approved representative or attorney. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(1). In many
instances, when a claimant is successfully represented by an attorney before the
agency, the attorney submits a fee petition to the Commissioner of Social
Security. The Commissioner fixes a reasonable fee in accordance with its
regulations to compensate the attorney for services performed in connection with
the claim. Id. Fee petitions may be authorized even if the claimant was
unsuccessful. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1725(b)(2).
As an alternative to fee petitions, Congress amended § 406(a) in 1990 to
include contingent-fee agreements for representation before the Commissioner
-3-
when asserting an entitlement to past-due benefits. See Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-508, § 5106(a), 104 Stat. 1388
(1990) (codified as amended at 42 U .S.C. § 406(a)(2)). The nature of these
agreements makes the award of a fee contingent on the claimant being successful
and “are the most common fee arrangement between attorneys and Social Security
claimants.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 800. The contingent-fee agreement must be
submitted to the Commissioner for approval in advance of a ruling. See 42
U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A). As long as the fee does not exceed the lesser of 25% of
past due benefits or $4,000 1 and the claimant is successful, the Commissioner will
approve the agreement at the time of the favorable determination. Id. The
amount approved is the maximum fee the representative or attorney may collect
for such representation. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3)(5).
B. Court Representation -- § 406(b)
Fees for court representation often arise when the claimant appeals from an
adverse decision by the agency. Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), whenever a court
finds in favor of a claimant who was represented by an attorney, it may determine
a reasonable fee for court representation, not in excess of 25% of the past-due
benefits awarded by reason of the judgment. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Section
1
The $4,000 limit was increased by the Commissioner of Social Security
to $5,300 in 2002. See 67 Fed. Reg. 2477 (2002).
-4-
406(b) also “allows a district court to award attorneys’ fees in conjunction with a
remand for further proceedings; it is not required, as a predicate to a § 406(b)(1)
fee award, that the district court remand for an award of benefits.” M cGraw v.
Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 503 (10th Cir. 2006). The only requirement is “the
claimant eventually be awarded past-due benefits, whether at the agency level or
during further judicial proceedings.” Id. No other fee may be withheld or paid
for court representation except as determined by the court. 42 U.S.C. §
406(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2).
In order to protect an attorney from non-payment at the agency and/or court
level, the Commissioner may withhold up to 25% of the past-due benefits
awarded to pay directly to the attorney. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(4) and (b)(1)(A).
If the amount withheld by the Commissioner is insufficient to satisfy the amount
of fees determined reasonable by the court, the attorney must look to the claimant,
not the past-due benefits, to recover the difference. At that point the attorney
stands on the same level as other judgment creditors in attempting to collect. See
generally Tom v. First Am. Credit Union, 151 F.3d 1289, 1291-93 (10th Cir.
1998) (Congress chose to protect Social Security beneficiaries from creditors who
utilized the judicial system and creditors who devised their own extra-judicial
methods of collecting debts); 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (disability insurance benefits are
-5-
not transferable or assignable nor are they subject to execution, levy, attachment,
garnishment or other legal process).
C. EAJA Fees
Apart from fees w hich may be awarded to an attorney for court
representation, a claimant may seek to defray the cost of appealing from an
agency decision to a court under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EA JA”) fee
shifting statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2412. EAJA fees are assessed against the United
States when its actions were not “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(1)(A). In the Social Security context, EAJA fees are awarded to the
prevailing party in addition to and separate from fees awarded for representation
before the court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). See Frazier v. Apfel, 240 F.3d
1284, 1286 (10th Cir. 2001); M cGraw, 450 F.3d at 497 (“[A]n EAJA award is to
the claimant, while counsel receives [the § 406(b)] award.”). If both are awarded,
attorneys are required to refund the lesser of the EA JA or § 406(b) fees to the
client, they cannot keep both. See McGraw, 450 F.3d at 497. In many cases
EAJA fees “effectively increase[] the portion of past-due benefits the successful
Social Security claimant may pocket.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. “Thus, an
EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b), so that the [amount of the
total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives] w ill be increased by the . . .
-6-
EAJA award up to the point the claimant receives 100 percent of the past-due
benefits.” Id.
III. C A S E FA C T S
Patricia W renn twice filed an application for D isability Insurance Benefits
with the Social Security Administration seeking benefits comm encing as of
October 18, 1998. On the second occasion, she was represented before the
agency by an attorney (“agency-level attorney”). During the application process,
however, Patricia died from lung failure and a bacterial infection of the heart.
Her application was subsequently denied. Patricia’s mother Leola, as an
interested party, appealed from the final denial of benefits to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Leola retained different counsel to represent her before the federal court
(“court-level attorney”) executing a “Federal Court Only” contingent fee
agreement and agreeing to pay 25% of any past-due benefits awarded to Patricia.
(A ppellant Br. at C-1.) The district court entered judgment in favor of Patricia
reversing the ALJ’s denial of benefits and remanded the case back to the agency
for further proceedings. Leola subsequently filed a petition for an aw ard of EAJA
fees in the amount of $5,306.80, which was granted by the district court. On
remand, the ALJ issued a fully favorable decision finding that Patricia had been
disabled since October 18, 1998.
-7-
The Social Security Administration sent a letter addressed to Patricia
(deceased) which calculated her past-due benefits at $51,658.00. It indicated the
Social Security Administration approved and paid her agency-level attorney
$4,000 in fees under their fee agreement and that amount was withheld from her
past-due benefits. 2 W hile not specifically reflected in the letter, 25% of Patricia’s
past-due benefits totaling $12,914.50 was w ithheld for attorney fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 406. The $4,000.00 paid to her agency-level attorney subtracted from
the $12,914.50 left $8,914.50 for other attorney fees.
Leola’s court-level attorney filed an application for attorney fees with the
district court for the full 25% of the past-due benefits ($12,914.50) pursuant to
the terms of her court-level contingent-fee agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
The Commissioner objected because the $12,914.50 in court-attorney fees
combined with the $4,000 in agency-attorney fees would be greater than 25% of
the past-due benefits awarded. The Commissioner asserted the court-level
attorney is limited, pursuant to § 406(b), to no more than the remaining $8,914.50
withheld. In response, the court-level attorney argued the 406(a) and 406(b) fees
are not limited by statute to an aggregate 25% . Rather, the statute allow s a fresh
25% at the court level. 3
2
Leola was represented by the same agency-level attorney on remand.
3
Counsel also argued to the district court that Leola would not be harmed
by a 25% award of court-level attorney fees because she is able to defray the cost
-8-
The district court disagreed. It rejected the argument that a new 25% is
allotted from the past-due benefits award for the payment of court-level attorney
fees under § 406(b). Based upon the court’s reading of our case law and that of a
number of other circuit and district courts, it determined the aggregate of both §
406(a) and § 406(b) fees cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits. It reasoned the
limitation, in part, was designed to protect claimants from inordinately large fees
and it was not the court’s duty to decide how the 25% was divided up among the
agency and court attorneys. The district court also stated that taking the EAJA
fees into account was not permitted. In the end, it awarded the court-level
attorney the remaining $8,914.50 of past-due benefits withheld by the agency and
ordered him to refund the EA JA fees to Leola.
IV . D ISC U SSIO N
The parties do not dispute the reasonableness of the attorney fees or the
amount of EA JA fees awarded by the district court. The only issue is whether the
court correctly interpreted the fee structure found in 42 U .S.C. § 406. Because
this case requires us to determine the meaning of § 406, we review the district
court’s decision de novo. See In re Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1239 (10th Cir. 2007).
of bringing the litigation through the EA JA award. In essence, counsel was
arguing Leola would still effectively recover more than 75% of Patricia’s past-due
benefits. Because the EA JA award is separate and distinct from attorney fees
under § 406(b) and consideration of the EA JA award does not play into our
statutory analysis of § 406, we decline to consider its effect.
-9-
“Our task is to construe what Congress has enacted. W e begin, as always, with
the language of the statute.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001).
Section 406(a)(2) establishes the limitation on fees the Commissioner may
award for representation before the agency:
In the case of a claim of entitlement to past-due benefits under
[subchapter II], if--
(I) an agreement between the claimant and another person regarding
any fee to be recovered by such person to compensate such person
for services with respect to the claim is presented in writing to the
Commissioner of Social Security prior to the time of the
Commissioner’s determination regarding the claim,
(ii) the fee specified in the agreement does not exceed the lesser of–
(I) 25% of the total amount of such past-due benefits . . . , or
(II) [$5,300], and
(iii) the determination is favorable to the claimant,
then the Commissioner of Social Security shall approve that
agreement at the time of the favorable determination, . . . the fee
specified in the agreement shall be the maximum fee.
42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A ); 67 Fed. Reg. 2477 (2002). 4 Section 406(b) provides:
W henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under
[subchapter II] who was represented before the court by an attorney,
the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a
reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25% of the
4
In this case past-due benefits were awarded, therefore, we decline to
address § 406(a)(1) w hich covers fees for representation before the agency where
past-due benefits are not awarded. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(1).
-10-
total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by
reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of Social Security
may . . . certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney
out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits.
In case of any such judgment, no other fee may be payable or
certified for payment for such representation except as provided in
this paragraph.
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
The question presented is whether Congress intended to limit representative
fees before both the agency and court to an aggregate 25% of past-due benefits.
The Commissioner asks us to reject the “plain and literal reading” of § 406 and
look to legislative history to discover congressional intent. (Appellee’s Br. at
12.) In order to do this, we would have to find an ambiguity in the statute. See
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664, 669 (10th Cir. 2002) (“A statute is
ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed
persons in two or more different senses.” (quotation omitted)). That is not the
case here. The language in both sections is clear and unambiguous. Section
406(a)(2) sets the ceiling under which the Commissioner may approve a
contingent-fee agreement between the claimant and her attorney, i.e., the lesser of
25% or $5,300. Section 406(b), on the other hand, sets the limit on otherwise
reasonable fees for representation before a court. The wording of each section is
plain and has but one meaning. W e honor the first and cardinal cannon of
construction; we “presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and
-11-
means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germ ain, 503
U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992). “W hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then,
this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete.” Id. at 254
(quotation omitted).
Contrary to the ruling of the district court and arguments presented by the
Commissioner, the intent and purpose of the statute and our case law does not
compel a different result. At issue in Harris v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, was whether an attorney could petition the court for fees accrued during
both agency and court representation. 836 F.2d 496, 497 (10th Cir. 1987). W e
held “the Secretary of H ealth and Human Services alone is empowered to aw ard
attorney’s fees for services rendered at the administrative level.” Id. In adopting
this majority view we recognized the language of § 406(b) suggests “the court is
given the authority to set fees for representation before the court, not for fees for
representation before the agency.” Id. at 498. Because of the separate provisions
found in § 406(a) and § 406(b), we reasoned that “each tribunal (court and
agency) is to operate in its own bailiwick, with its own expertise guiding
reimbursements within its sphere of operation.” Id. at 498.
The Commissioner points to the footnote in Harris, where we made a
passing reference to the aggregate of fees to be determined on remand:
W e note that federal appellate courts which have addressed the issue
agree that the collective fees awarded for services at both
-12-
administrative and judicial levels cannot exceed 25% of the total of
the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled. M orris v.
Social Security Admin., 689 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1982); Webb v.
Richardson, 472 F.2d 529 (6th Cir. 1972); Dawson v. Finch, 425
F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 830, 91 S.Ct. 60, 27
L.Ed.2d 60 (1970). Sometimes this may create a need for one
tribunal to be aware of what the other has awarded. In the case
before us, however, such awareness appears unnecessary because the
total amount sought before both tribunals is far less than the amount
available from 25% of past-due benefits.
Harris, 836 F.2d at 498 n.1. This by-the-by footnote is dictum we are not
obligated to follow. See Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181, 1184 (10th
Cir. 1995) (“Dicta are ‘statements and comments in an opinion concerning some
rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to
determination of the case in hand.’” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 454 (6th ed.
1990)).
Equally inapposite is the Commissioner’s reliance on Frazier v. Apfel, 240
F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2001). In Frazier, we approved the district court’s separate
award of fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b). The district court – not this
Court – was in the best position to determine whether such an award is
appropriate and the reasonable amount. Id. at 1286-87. In addition, the district
court should be the one to determine how the EAJA and § 406(b) fee aw ards “are
to be divided between the social security claimant and his or her attorney.” Id. at
1287 (citing Kemp v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 966, 969 (10th Cir. 1987) (stating that
district court order should include language preventing double payment of fees to
-13-
attorney for same work and the lower of two fees must be refunded to claimant)).
Frazier’s citation to Harris for the proposition that the attorney could not recover
an award of § 406(b) fees in excess of 25% once the amount of fees from the
Commissioner had been collected was, again, dictum. See Id. at 1287 (citing to
Harris, 836 F.2d at 497).
The holdings of our cases may be summarized as follows: “[u]nder the
[Social Security Act’s] scheme, each authority sets fees for the w ork done before
it; thus, the court does not make fee awards for work at the agency level, and the
Commissioner does not make fee awards for work done before the court.”
M cGraw, 450 F.3d at 498; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1720, 404.1728(a). The
Commissioner and court have the authority to independently determine the
appropriate attorney fees. Each has separate standards to make this determination
and is only limited as provided by statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A), and
(b)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1720, 404.1725. Based on the plain language and
statutory structure found in § 406, the 25% limitation on fees for court
representation found in § 406(b) is not itself limited by the amount of fees
awarded by the Commissioner.
The only other Circuit to address this issue since the 1990 limitation on
agency-level contingent-fee agreements comes to a similar conclusion:
[S]ection 406(b)(1) establishes a separate standard for awarding fees
for work performed in cases decided by a judge and that those fees
-14-
may not be “in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due
benefits.” Thus, for services performed before the [Commissioner],
the [Commissioner] is free to set a reasonable fee, except as
otherw ise provided in the statute, see 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A). For
services performed in a federal court where the court awards
benefits, the attorney fee award is limited to 25 percent of past-due
benefits. Finally, in cases w here the court remands the case back to
the [Commissioner] for further proceedings, the court will set the
fee-limited to 25 percent of past-due benefits-for the work performed
before it, and the [Commissioner] will award whatever fee the
[Commissioner] deems reasonable for the work performed on remand
and prior administrative proceedings.
Horenstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs., 35 F.3d 261, 262 (6th Cir. 1994)
(en banc) (overruling the “single tribunal rule” from Webb v. Richardson, 472
F.2d 529 (6th Cir. 1972)).
The Commissioner argues this reading of the statute is contrary to the
purpose of the amendment – restricting excessive fees – and that attorneys w ill
receive 50% of a claimant’s past-due benefits if they are allowed to recover 25%
at both the agency and court levels. Although mathematically possible, it is
unlikely if superintendence of fees is conscientiously done as Congress intended.
Each tribunal is charged with ensuring the attorney fee is reasonable. An attorney
representing a claimant before the agency will receive 25% of past-due benefits
from the agency only if it is less than $5,300. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)(A); 67 Fed.
Reg. 2477 (2002). At the court level, “[Section] 406(b) calls for court review of
[contingency-fee] arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield
-15-
reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. W e have no
reason to doubt the district court is best situated to make this determination.
W e R E V E R S E and, since the district court is in the best position to
determine the reasonableness of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b),
R E M A N D for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment. The
district court must specify how the EA JA and court-level fees are to be
apportioned between the client and her attorney.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-16-